Dealerships don't want to spend more on tools needed to service the Volts since sales for most are down

Select Chevrolet dealerships around the U.S. are ditching the Volt after General Motors (GM) hiked up the price of tools to service the vehicle.

Last year, dealerships spent $1,800 to $2,800 on tools that are required to service each Volt plug-in hybrid. However, GM has raised the price of these tools to $5,100. The reason? A battery-repowering tool that removes and ships sections of the Volt's huge 435-pound battery for repair instead of shipping the whole thing costs dealerships about $4,735. This makes up the bulk of the tool costs while a few others are needed as well.

Due to this price hike, some dealerships have decided to stop selling the Volt altogether. Some say their overall Volt sales just don't justify the additional cost.

Allyn Barnard, owner of Jim Barnard Chevrolet in Churchville, New York, is among those who feel that way. He has only sold five Volts since the vehicle's launch in late 2010/early 2011, and doesn't see the point in paying over $5,000 for the tools needed to service them.

"Going forward, the profitability would be really hard for us to justify the expense of the repair tools," said Barnard.

The Volt may have had a bumpy start with a few production shutdowns and issues with lithium ion battery fires during National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) testing, but sales of the Volt have been very impressive over the last year. During the first seven months of 2012, GM sold 10,666 Volt extended range electric vehicles for an increase of 270% compared to the first seven months of 2011.

However, Chevrolet then had a low November sales month due to low inventory. Chevrolet sold 1,519 Volts in November 2012, which represented a 33 percent increase over November 2011. But the number of cars sold in November was roughly half the number sold in October and September when the company sold 2,961 and 2,851 Volts respectively.

As of December 2012, General Motors had sold 20,828 Volts for the year.

Despite these excellent numbers (Nissan was hoping to sell 20,000 Leafs in 2012, but fell way short), about 70 percent of Volt sales are generated by the 300 top-selling dealerships. There are about 2,614 dealerships certified to sell the Volt.

Taxpayer money should not be used to pay off GM union pensions and benefits. Especially at a loss! I do not want anyone's taxpayer money being used to fund the development, marketing and sales of some ridiculous, risky, automobile model.

The numbers don't lie. But you can take that up with CNN. If you want to use your income to fund this ponzy scheme feel free to buy up all their stock. I'm sure its a great deal right now. -at a loss of course.

It's new technology, so there is always going to be a risk of additional costs and risk of initial ownership. But at the height of what was to be a second depression, I fell the right move was made to bail out GM. Unemployment was in the double digits, and banks weren't handing out any loans. Saving a few million jobs was very important.

Plus, I'm perfectly fine with Government spending going towards cleaner vehicles such as the Volt. It has sparked consumer interest, and now there are almost two dozen different EV's in development. Getting consumers into a cleaner, greener focus and less dependency on foreign oil is a win win.

You think the government saved millions of jobs with the bailout? Are you serious? You think if GM declared bankruptcy that the next day all GM factory workers, dealerships, and repair shops would have closed for business?

GM received $49 billion to avoid bankruptcy, yet all stock-holders had there shares declared worthless, so that the US Government could decide who should own the company. In order to receive the entirety of their loan back without accounting for any interest, GM stock would need to be valued at over $50 per share, and not decrease when the government starts to sell their shares and flood the market. GM closed today at less than $30. In other words, it appears as though the US government will have given away $20 billion free and clear so that GM could avoid bankruptcy. How was this a success?

Yes, I do think the saved millions of dollars with the bailout. GM has had 11 profitable quarters, with many, many more on the way in the future. It isn't just about losing a few billion dollars to bail out GM, it's about the future growth and potential of a now fully-revamped business. They will sell millions of cars, that will be fabricated by Americans, with parts being manufactured mostly in the US.

The bailout's mandatory restructuring of the company was very successful. Much more so than the trillions spent on the "war on terror" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

quote: The bailout's mandatory restructuring of the company was very successful. Much more so than the trillions spent on the "war on terror" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Liberals just can't help themselves, can you? Debate can be about anything, and Iraq and Afghanistan will have to come up, if Bush isn't invoked by name directly.

The DoD could have its budget cut to zero, and we'd still be running a hefty budget deficit. Get over it.

quote: GM has had 11 profitable quarters, with many, many more on the way in the future.

If it were in such great shape, the worlds multi-billionaire individuals and conglomerates would've been standing with open arms to embrace the sale of such an apparently incredibly profitable enterprise, and the bailout wouldn't of been necessary, and they'd of done it despite the economic situation of the day. Warren Buffet himself was on the prowl, and almost single handed saved Goldman Sachs with just a small portion of his resources. What your saying fails logic simply because if you were right, then the looming failure of GM wouldn't of been an issue because a "bankruptcy" (which occurred anyway) would've been a technical bit of paperwork as ownership changed hands, with no impact on the ground.

Fact is, you're completely wrong, which is why there was a need to bail them out in the first place.

Anyway, I and plenty of other people think liquidation sales would've found some buyers, or GM could've shucked off debt and union contracts and continued on after a restructuring. Unfortunately, we'll never know now.

quote: The bailout's mandatory restructuring of the company was very successful.

For GM UAW members, it was glorious. Ask what non-union members at people like Delphi thought of the restructuring, who saw their pensions obliterated in order to protect the UAW's.

GM's 'bailout' will still lead to it's inevitable decline. It's like an ex-Hollywood hottie on her last facelift. Look at the billions of pounds the Brits invested in their auto industry. How many of them today are independent and owned by Brits instead of foreigners?

quote: GM's 'bailout' will still lead to it's inevitable decline. It's like an ex-Hollywood hottie on her last facelift. Look at the billions of pounds the Brits invested in their auto industry. How many of them today are independent and owned by Brits instead of foreigners?

Exactly. Rewarding failure virtually always leads to more failure. Clinging to the mid-1900s obsession with manufacturing just shows liberals aren't as forward-thinking and adaptive as they'd like you to believe. (Marx lived before any such boom in services and intellectual capital could be imagined, so that they can't advance beyond manufacturing only betrays their ideological moorings)

Relevant fact: This isn't the first time Chrysler was bailed out, either.